In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, emotions are raw — and rightly so. A conservative leader, husband, and father of two was murdered for his beliefs. But let’s be clear: the answer to political violence is not government censorship. Unfortunately, even some on the right are flirting with that very mistake.
Attorney General Pam Bondi recently suggested that the Justice Department would go after so-called “hate speech,” saying there’s a line between “free speech” and “hate speech.” Wrong. Charlie Kirk himself said it best back in May 2024: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.” That is the American tradition, from Jefferson onward — free speech for all, not just for what government bureaucrats decide is “nice.”
To her credit, Bondi has since walked it back, clarifying that threats of violence are not protected speech — which is true but completely beside the point. Nobody disputes that violence crosses the line. But creating a “hate speech” carve-out only hands censors the very weapon they’ve been waiting for. If the government gets to decide what’s “hate,” you can bet conservative speech will be first on the chopping block.
Now, none of this means private institutions can’t impose consequences. If MSNBC fires Matthew Dowd for excusing Kirk’s assassination, good. If a doctor resigns after cheering Kirk’s murder, or if a teacher who glorifies the assassin is shown the door, fine. That’s not censorship — that’s accountability. But the government policing “wrongthink”? That’s tyranny dressed up as compassion.
Free speech has always been messy. People say offensive, wrong, even vile things. Others argue back, correct them, or ignore them. That’s how this country has operated for over two centuries, and somehow we’ve managed to stay free. The alternative — giving bureaucrats the power to silence what they call “hate” or “disinformation” — is far more dangerous than any ugly words.
Here’s the bottom line: Charlie Kirk’s death was tragic enough. The worst possible insult to his legacy would be to trample the freedoms he gave his life defending. The First Amendment is not negotiable, not conditional, and not up for redefinition. The best way to honor Kirk’s memory is simple — protect free speech, even when it’s messy, and never let the government decide whose voices get heard.
